​Well, that was unusual, and a little embarrassing. Yesterday afternoon (Pacific time) in his more than three-hour podcast, Joe Rogan hosted skeptic Michael Shermer, amateur geologist Randall Carlson, and journalist Graham Hancock, along with a pair of additional guests in the third hour, to debate Hancock’s claim that a comet destroyed an advanced civilization at the end of the last ice age. Shermer more or less blew it. He spoke above the level of the audience, threw kitchen-sink arguments at Hancock, and, worst of all, focused so heavily on the negative that he came across as a scold. The problem is that he is no expert in archaeology, so he spent more time discussing the burden of proof than the origins and development of Hancock’s claims. He couldn’t quite speak to the awe and wonder of the past; instead, he spoke of academic conferences and the proper way to debate new facts. Even when he tried to speak to the amazing antiquity of Göbekli Tepe, he couldn’t quite match Hancock’s fluidly British debate team polish. Skeptics need spokespeople who can speak with passion.

Shermer was not happy that I found his end of the debate lacking and attacked me on Twitter, and later apologized for what he called a “raw moment”:

Such is life. Shermer disapproves of book reviews that consider the book as an artistic production of the author as much as it is a list of facts to be confirmed or refuted. It is a choice, but the artistry of the volume is not ad hominem since it does not speak to the facts, only to the tone, an important consideration in evaluating whether a book is any fun to read. Otherwise, really, we are just collecting and evaluating facts. Here, then, we differ too on how to evaluate the Joe Rogan Experience debate. He would like us to judge on the facts, but as Aristotle outlined, logos is only one pillar of rhetoric; ethos and especially pathos are important in governing audience impressions. It is pathos where Shermer tends to be weakest.

​Hancock, on the other hand, was eloquent but idiotic, and painfully quick to anger at the least provocation. I was frankly surprised that he couldn’t hold his cool for more than a few minutes at a time. When asked why we have no ancient metal tools or writing from the lost civilization, Hancock suggested that after the comet, the surviving people chose not to use metal or writing after the disaster to undo the destroyed civilization’s sins. (He later clarified that he thought that the ancients believed themselves “to blame” for the comet.) Shermer, blind to Hancock’s storytelling, couldn’t engage him in the idiocy of this warmed-over Atlantis story and instead said that the explanation was “OK” before moving on.

Part of the problem is that Hancock happily toggled between two different conceptions of “civilization” and Shermer didn’t call him on it. Sometimes, Hancock spoke (reasonably, if improbably) that in some locations monumental architecture and perhaps cities could have existed earlier than we thought. At other times, he spoke of a world-bestriding civilization that could reach from the Americas to Europe to Asia and beyond. He cites the two interchangeably, but Shermer allowed him to speak of Atlantis and a single Stone Age city as though the latter would prove the former.

Their discussion of Göbekli Tepe (“a gigantic fucking mystery,” as Hancock called it) was embarrassing, mostly because Shermer couldn’t point to other evidence of carvings before Göbekli Tepe, even though Ice Age art is well-known, and often beautiful. (He mentioned Venus sculptures, but did not go beyond this.) The cave bison of Tuc d’Audoubert, for example, are beautifully carved. Göbekli Tepe’s art is not ex nihilo, ​though it is more developed. Shermer flailed around basic questions about the origins of agriculture and whether hunter-gatherers are able to undertake construction in the absence of state-level societies, and he got tangled in a ridiculous argument over whether the Lascaux cave paintings were “more impressive” than Göbekli Tepe. That is a subjective call and offers no argumentative benefit. It did, however, let Hancock crow about how there is no “evolution” in the development of Göbekli Tepe, which implies, he says, an origin in Atlantis. This leads Shermer down the garden path to a pet subject, human evolution, and thus into questions of consciousness, a Hancock favorite. At every stage, Hancock sounded better informed because he knew his material better and that he had the righteous indication of the passionate.

In a particularly uncomfortable section, Hancock quotes Marc Defant’s Skeptic magazine review of Hancock’s Magicians of the Gods and lists each and every error he found in the piece, which is scheduled to run next month in Skeptic, two years after the book was published. According to Hancock, the unedited and un-vetted version of the review contains errors, and Shermer was taken entirely by surprise. The review was perhaps snarky but Hancock makes it seem as though there were innumerable errors; here, though, Hancock and Defant are both partially right. Defant misunderstood Hancock’s intended meaning, especially when referring to the introduction of metals, but Hancock never concedes that he intentionally obscures how much he believes in the claims from the ancient texts he cites. This lets him use the “evidence” as it suits him, and to retreat behind the claim that “I’m just quoting” when challenged. Almost two hours later, Defant appeared on the show to defend himself, and without facts, they essentially say “Yes, you did,” and “No, I didn’t” to one another. In this same section of the argument, Shermer concedes that he knows “very little” about Hancock’s claims about the age of the Sphinx and the Orion Correlation Theory, which Joe Rogan correctly notes is foundational for understanding Hancock’s worldview.

I’d love to hear what Hancock thought of my review of his book. (We know what Shermer thinks.)

The most interesting takeaway from this section of the debate is that Hancock is still fuming-red angry over criticisms made of the Orion Correlation Theory two decades ago. He spent an inordinate amount of time arguing about Ed Krupp’s (wrong) claim that the Orion correlation is “upside-down,” a mistake that he fought about for years in the 1990s.

Shermer seems a bit slow to pick up on the lines where he could attack Hancock, and he lets Hancock humiliate him with ad hominem attacks. Shermer fumbles a question about whether there is any record of the Sphinx before the New Kingdom. The correct response is: well, if they didn’t mention building it, why didn’t anyone bother to note its existence either? Hancock dismisses Shermer’s entire discussion of Egypt with a disingenuous but perfectly executed “oh, dear” when Shermer conceded he had never traveled to Egypt. Hancock suggests (wrongly) that one must visit the pyramids in order to understand why the pyramids give the “impression” of being too grand for Egypt. (He says Giza was laid out in the Ice Age.) The right way to attack here is to point to Hancock’s faults--you mean you never read the primary sources you cite secondhand? Oh, dear. But Shermer lets himself look the fool because he lacks the expert’s understanding of the material, falling back instead on generalizations about argumentation.

A section followed discussing the comet, climate change, and catastrophe. Personally, I would have dismissed this entire line of argument as irrelevant to the question of a lost civilization. I would not care whether the comet actually hit unless or until we prove that this civilization existed in the first place. Any cosmic, geological, or other natural event does not imply the existence of a human culture for it to destroy. The comet question is interesting in its own right, but not in terms of whether Atlantis existed. Similarly, Hancock’s attacks on the midcentury Clovis-first model of the peopling of the Americas (one that hasn’t been widely believed for decades) ought to have nothing to do with the lost civilization. Shermer’s lack of knowledge about the anthropological and archaeological literature of the past 20 years leaves him—to my shock—defending the Clovis-first paradigm! Even an exasperated Graham Hancock can’t believe what he’s hearing and has to school Shermer on the fact that even Hancock concedes that mainstream archaeologists no longer believe in Clovis-first. “I’m not going to put a label on it,” Shermer said when asked point blank whether he believes in Clovis-first. On Twitter after the show he tried to explain himself, and it seems that he was confusing Clovis-first with more recent suggestions about the timing of first entry into the Americas.

Joe Rogan actually gets it right when he tells Shermer that he is criticizing for the sake of criticizing and is speaking without having done the research. Because Shermer is not an archaeologist or a science writer specializing in archaeology, he lacks some key information.

It actually made me angry when Shermer let pass Hancock’s anger about decades-old paradigms when, if he were sharper and better informed, he would be able to attack Hancock for working within his own outdated paradigm—Ignatius Donnelly’s, whose books Hancock essentially all but plagiarized—and the fact that this fringe paradigm has had 135 years to prove its case and failed to do so. Shermer, lacking expertise on Hancock’s specific influences, flails about by comparing Hancock to other fringe writers, which Hancock correctly notes proves nothing about Hancock. “We’re not talking about them,” Rogan said. “We’re talking about Graham Hancock!” “If there are other alternative theories,” Hancock said, “it’s not my problem.”

Shermer made the mistake of assuming this was a debate of skeptic vs. believer instead of a discussion of the detailed evidence that underlies an unusual and improbable, though not prima facie impossible, claim. He came to debate the scientific method dispassionately and didn’t realize Hancock was arguing emotionally about the very meaning of history itself.

Hancock disingenuously denies being a “doom and gloom” prophet of destruction, which is silly since he twice made prophecies about the coming end of the world. He waves this away by saying that he is a reporter so he is only reporting the ideas of others. It’s a convenient excuse when he doesn’t want to take responsibility for ideas; when he does, suddenly he’s a warrior advocating against the mainstream. It seems the only thing he really stands for his anger at mainstream science. Case in point: When asked about his references to the Nephilim or Atlanteans as the “Magicians of the Gods,” he denied that he called them magicians, saying that this was the wording of the Sumerians, speaking of the Apkallu, and therefore not his responsibility despite literally naming his book for them.

When Marc Defant is brought on in the third hour, he and Hancock argue quite a bit, and Defant ends up apologizing to Hancock for using intemperate language, specifically this line: “By the end of the book, the only ‘message’ I am left with is that Hancock has a real knack for conning a hellacious number people into buying his books.” Defant said he did not realize that the public would read his draft article, which he intended to share with his students. (Seriously?) The edited version, he said, does not contain the material Hancock criticized.

Finally, almost three hours in, Defant asks what any of the comet in North America claims have to do with Atlantis in Europe, Egypt, or Indonesia. The response is that Carlson, amateur catastrophe geologist, isn’t making those claims, so they won’t answer it. Defant and Carlson argue about geology, and I don’t much care about this except that Carlson proposes that my childhood home, the Finger Lakes of New York, were produced by “subglacial mega-floods” rather than being scoured by retreating glaciers as I had always been taught. This has nothing to do with lost civilizations, but it does touch on something personally relevant to me. The discussion of geology went on for most of the third hour, with another scientist, one who works on the impact hypothesis, coming in to discuss cosmic impact geology, and I tuned out because I don’t care about the issue unless and until the lost civilization is proved. The second guest declined to comment on the lost civilization but suggested that the extinction of the megafauna created a religion. He declined to say how.

As the show passed the three-hour mark, they showed no sign of stopping, or of getting off the comet geology question. Reader, I gave up. An hour of listening to the intricacies of comet impact geology was too much for me, and as it approached 8 PM ET, I just got too bored and didn’t want to listen to any more.

Excellent review of the debate, Jason, thank you for enduring it for as long as you did to inform your blog readers about how it played out.

You detailed well where exactly Shermer dropped the ball and made his mistakes. I only wish that it was you that had been on that panel instead. It doesn't surprise me that Hancock grew angry at the slightest provocation, because it seems as he has gotten older his original view of himself has changed from a journalist just asking questions about ancient history to a staunch keeper of the fringe flame. I've noticed that he's gotten much less tolerant of opposing viewpoints from the direction of academia. Perhaps he has been spending too much time with Tsoukalos, who flies into righteous anger whenever anyone questions in the slightest his Ancient Alien theology, or "Techno-Crypto-Christianity" as my brother calls it.

In addition to his lackluster debate skills, it doesn't sound as if Shermer did any research before hand to prepare himself for the debate. It shouldn't have been too difficult for an experienced skeptic to destroy Hancock's arguments live on the air. Now instead of possibly opening some of the eyes belonging to Hancock's readers, Hancock will now be able to spin the entire situation to his advantage on his website and FB page, and his fans will buy it hook, line and sinker, even those that listened to it themselves.

I wish you had been there, Jason. Such a great opportunity wasted.

Reply

Only Me

5/17/2017 11:10:46 am

Meh. Despite Shermer's poor performance, Hancock didn't really achieve anything either because he won't debate the very academics he rages against. When he sits down to debate experts that will tear him a new asshole, then I'll be interested.

Hancock's fans will be appeased and he gets to sell more copies of his book. In the meantime, those of us who aren't brain dead will continue to ask, "So, where's the evidence for that lost civilization, i.e., Atlantis?"

Reply

TONY S.

5/17/2017 11:37:22 am

Good point.

Reply

Lou

11/18/2017 11:02:08 am

Maybe you should read his book for the evidence

Reply

Mark

11/28/2017 06:06:17 pm

Evidence is there but not proof,he’ll of a lot of coincidences that some are mind blowing.From maps to Plato calling the date & his uncle Solon.This website called Atlantis quest 2 by RE Leonard puts all this circumstantial evidence blew my mind.Hes now retired & all the work he did is amazing,the website is a little tough to find but so worth it.

Reply

Americanegro

5/17/2017 11:15:01 am

"Almost three hours in" and "most of the third hour"? Which?

That said, what an incredible, excruciating, and long review! Wonderful! You are truly doing the non-existent Lord's work, Jason. Thank you.

Reply

TONY S.

5/17/2017 11:39:11 am

I took both to mean that Jason watched until the third full hour was almost done.

I wasn't really watching the time closely, but I believe that the guests came on most of the way through the second hour and were still there during hour 3. That said, I wouldn't put it past me to have written the wrong thing. After three hours, my head was a little numb.

Americanegro

5/17/2017 01:32:15 pm

@ Tony S. I get that, but the beginning of the third hour isn't "almost three hours in". A point close to the end of the third hour is. Just picking nits, because HERODOTUS!!! LOOK! SOMETHING SHINY!!!

Similar to "When did the 1960s end?" or "When did the 21st Century begin?"

Once again, thanks to Jason for this review. I'd rather watch Platoon than fight in Vietnam and I'd rather read this review than listen to 3 hours of this stuff.

Shane Sullivan

5/17/2017 12:43:12 pm

As someone with a history of getting all red and sweaty during arguments, I don't fault Shermer for lacking in pathos. I know it's an important part of trying to convince a general audience, but it's not something I've ever found terribly convincing, or that I much enjoy listening to. If he had done his homework, I think his approach would have been adequate.

Reply

Kal

5/17/2017 02:19:30 pm

Three hours? Crikey.

To quote Niel DeGrasse Tyson, "It's not that there seem to be more skeptics and UFO enthusiasts, but that the Internet gives the small number a louder voice." From his startalk show.

The Great Lakes were indeed formed by glaciers in retreat, as is most of the Mississippi watershed. If it was a comet, it would not have been so gradual.

Reply

Americanegro

5/17/2017 02:49:09 pm

Keep in mind that NDT has a habit of saying stuff that is factually wrong. In that regard he is a shanda for my people.

Reply

TONY S.

5/17/2017 04:30:38 pm

I didn't know that, actually. That's a little surprising.

Americanegro

5/17/2017 07:06:24 pm

Just google "neil degrasse tyson wrong".

Joe Scales

5/17/2017 09:18:35 pm

Tyson has taken Michio Kaku's mantle for most annoying talking head on semi-legitimate cable science programming.

Americanegro

5/17/2017 09:42:51 pm

Kaku is a little too Art Bell friendly for my taste. On the bright side, he has a page on his site that lays out the various math courses you need to take to actually do physics. Presumably with his Astrophysics degree NDT has taken them. I respect that achievement.

Don't get me started on Bill Nye.

Joe Scales

5/18/2017 10:02:43 am

An aside here...

Kaku had his own show for a brief period of time where he would theorize on how to make certain sci-fi inventions become reality. You know, like light sabers, invisibility or warp speed. He would then present his ideas to a critical group of... wait for it... sci-fi fanboys. Not other scientists. No, not them. But basically a cavalcade of video gamers and Star Trek/Wars trivia geeks. It was too absurd to even be funny.

Nye is an entertainer desperate to remain relevant. Found his bandwagon though.

John Moore

5/18/2017 10:45:15 am

Why do you think that Gobekli Type is an astronomical site? I believe that in the interview Jens did with Archaeofantasies he mentioned that there is some indication that the standing stones were actually subterranean, which would seem to indicate it was not astronomical. I don't think it's possible to discount the idea that the stones were meant to represent Gods, ancestors or some other anthropomorphized figure.

Reply

PeterF

5/17/2017 07:03:12 pm

I frankly found the entire 3 hours to be some sort of pugilists reunion. I care not for the personal emotions erupting.. on both sides. I gather Grahm protects his name (brand) fiercely, as it is the source of his living. Understandable.

As for Michael Shermer... I found him arrogant. A know it all attitude, with few flashes on desire to accept new ideas. He behaved like the impatient father teaching his petulant son how to ride a bike.

You dont have to have a Geology degree to make observations (though you make better ones if you get an education). Michael Shermer showed 0 respect in the fact that Randall Carlson has been studying the floods theory for 25+ years. And has taken the time to visit sites over and over.. take more notes, make more observation. He could still be dead wrong, but you gotta respect the guy for his focus. Shermer showed nothing but contempt. Even at the end of a heated argument when everybody made peace, and Randell asked to continue the conversation in private (asking for his contact info), Shermer was agreeable but dismissive, pointing Randall to Shermer's web site, instead of a more direct approach.

I got the distinct feeling that Randall seeks truth... Graham promotes 3rd party theories.. and Sherman was not interested in either cooperating or exploring options.

I like to think that our history is incomplete... and artifacts like the Antikythera Mechanism have been (mostly) accepted as a legitimate human history changer.. pushing technology up the table about 1000 years.

But sometimes.. I wonder if there is more.

Question for this group.
To those who have looked, is there not a single artifact, site, technique/technology that tickles you?

Do the different styles of stone work of Machu Pichu give anyone here pause? (3 distinct styles). Not to mention the modern day impossibility of transporting multi-ton stone blocks from miles away, down mountains, up mountains, and cross rivers.

The fact that the whole world decided to build abodes shaped like pyramids? ( they are everywhere, we now know due in no small part to Google maps). How do we reconcile the lack of transatlantic travel with civilizations building identical structures, most of which face north.

The no-longer controversial dating (~5000 years older) of the Sphynx?

The intricate and complex caves all over the world, some with manufacture capabilities we don't have today (look at the Ellora caves in India). Some of these caves could house 30k people... Look at turkey.

And there is no real explanation to those stone spheres found in Africa... they could be naturally forming.. but ugh.. the ridges make it very difficult.

I am not religious about these things. And please.. no need to bash. I am honestly curious.

I think that the 12k mark is interesting... and a definite marker IF civilizations were wiped out.

Have a super day folks.

Hug someone today :)

Reply

Americanegro

5/17/2017 07:22:48 pm

Pyramids are simply the most efficient way to make a really big pile of rocks. That is why they're all over the world. Have you ever seen stacks of cannonballs, even in pictures? Same thing. On the other hand, pyramids are generally not "abodes". The worldwide standard for abodes is the cube or the cylinder, less commonly the cone or the hemisphere. Geometric shapes, not cross-continental communication.

How do you tell which way a pyramid is facing?

For a modern take on hauling stuff up and down mountains, you might enjoy the movie Fitzcarraldo. "Ich will mein gross Oper!"

I share your finding the Antikythera Mechanism intriguing.

Reply

PeterF

5/17/2017 08:21:33 pm

Nice.. the pyramids. Sure.. Makes sense. It also explains that some of them are found in conic mound like structures.. just the easiest way to build with nothing but small items (no large piece for a roof). Again, geometry. Brilliant!

Thx mate. You lit a light bulb today. Pat yourself on the back :)

It does leave the orientation of the pyramid unanswered. If a wall is perfectly facing North (give some slack for true vs magnetic). But All pyramids have a wall perpendicular to North.

Thx for the reference of the movie. I took a quick look at it... cute. Will watch.

Now, for me, the BIGGEST question is why so big... the MEGASTONES. We have quite a few working theories about the transport of these large stones... to me the question why always WHY so big. Being succinct... Leaving the cutting technique out of the equation... If you can cut stone any size you want, why cut them in a size that requires such herculean effort for transport? That has always puzzled me. Megalithic Monuments.. sure.. but to what amounts to "stone Legos" seems odd. Seems to me that transport, and assembly would have been greatly simplified with smaller Lego blocks.

Cheers!

Americanegro

5/17/2017 09:54:53 pm

"But All pyramids have a wall perpendicular to North."

Even without checking I know that's not true.

As to why the large stones, think of the heavy extravagant British lead crystal glassware of the 18th century when London became a center of finance and trade. It's a way of saying "We're here, and we're going to make sure you recognize it!" Also, one big stone is less likely to fall apart than a stack of stones, so they were built to last.

My guess is that some megalithic structures were modeled with stacks of stones or wooden structures first to verify the alignments.

V

5/19/2017 11:23:30 am

PeterF, why is there a skyscraper in Dubai where you can watch the sun set twice in one day? Why skyscrapers at all? Why huge temples and palaces the world over?

The answer is, "because they inspire awe." They are big and bold and they make people feel small. Whether it's for religion or for power and wealth, bigger puts people "in their place" better. It is a matter of psychology, and it still works to this day. I could write an entire essay on the matter of scale and human thinking, but it's already been done, and probably better, by numerous others. Look up "heirarchical scale."

Pyramids are NOT "identical" all over the world. The angles of sides, the shapes of faces, the decorations inside and out, the methods of construction differ from place to place. The stated purpose differs from place to place. Orienting to the directions is common but not absolute, and it tends to happen because the basic cardinal directions, you know, are kind of important to people who depend on trade, ie, people getting where they're going--it doesn't have to be transatlantic for it to be TRAVEL, you know. Seriously, you might as well say an ancient Chinese bi disk and my modern plastic pill case are "identical" just because they're both circular. The truth is, "pyramid" is a geometric construct, a class of objects rather than a specific object, and it's distilled from all these wondrous and varying shapes, both natural and not, that we already know from the real world, just like "square" and "circle" and "cube" and "sphere" and "cylinder" and "triangle" and all the other basic shapes.

Different styles of stonework do not bother me at Macchu Pichu anymore than they do in London, England. Macchu Pichu was occupied for a little over a century; different stonework could easily just be different artisans. Or, like a modern city, it could be different architects building different parts of the city. Or, it could have been planned for artistic effect, like Versailles, which had multiple artists work on it and you can easily see that if you know much about it. And sorry, but....judging some of these things by modern standards is really quite stupid. People depend so much on machinery in the modern period that they forget that all our huge, massive construction equipment can be broken down into the six basic machines, and that anyone with an understanding of the six basic machines can do everything a modern heavy machine can and sometimes more. You are speaking to someone who has personally moved a several-ton block of steel across uneven terrain, around a building, using two pebbles and a rope and her own knowledge of physics alone. It wasn't even hard and didn't take me more than 20 minutes. See, the pebbles were pivots, and the rope merely a guideline; I literally "walked" the thing around the house to the back entrance. Once you've done that, you stop finding it at all mysterious that pre-Modern peoples could move large stones wherever the hell they wanted to, from however far away they wanted to. And once you realize that you have imports from literally every continent except Antarctica in your home, you stop being so surprised that pre-Modern peoples might WANT to move things great distances, just to have them. "Rare" is almost as impressive as "huge," after all.

Which brings me to "capabilities we don't have today." Well, yes. When people no longer use a thing, it often gets forgotten. We have plenty of other areas where we forgot how to do something, too. Greek fire, Roman subacqueous cement, mortar used on the Great Wall of China...there's nothing particularly mysterious about it. It's simply transmission errors and omissions. Even when things are written down, it's always done from the viewpoint of the writer--and often, writers make assumptions about what the readers will already know that are probably generally true when it's written down, but later generations may not understand. That problem gets worse and worse the farther from source you get, because language changes over time, and after a while, what the source was written in isn't even the same language as what people speak and read now, and so translation is required, and translation is ALSO from the viewpoint of the translator, and more errors slip in and more things wind up omitted, because the translator can try but they can't entirely reproduce the source's headspace.

As for the Klerksdorp spheres...they're naturally-occurring, not requiring the touch of human hand at all. Even the ridges are normal. I mean...stop and think about it. If THE PLANET can form as a sphere, and its surface is not particularly perfectly even, why should it be a surprise that smaller items can have similar features? The internal structure of these things shows that the grooves were formed, not cut, and there are other, larger, less fine-grained objects with similar properties all over the world.

I don't understand your question about the Sphinx,

PeterF

5/20/2017 08:15:02 pm

to V -

Thx for the reply.

To your points:
"because they inspire awe"
It could be the answer, but it is hard to say that size is the pyramid's only unproven narrative. The inner chambers, the choice of materials (inside and out), the odd perfectly symmetrical indent on the walls (making the pyramid have 8 vs 4 sides), etc etc.
Maybe ALL of these oddities are simply part of the awe, for values of the period we don't share today.. but I find it hard to believe. The choice of internal materials, the very unique inner design are two points against it simply being "awe"

"pyramids not the same all over the world"
A claim I never made, and I don't think anybody has.. It is factually, photographically untrue.
I was just calling attention that they do exist all over the world. There are web sites tracking it now, Google Earth has provided global search tools to a global audience. Amazing what these guys find. :)

"moving large blocks", "stonework/tech we don't have"
Dude/Lady.. That is awesome! That you had the personal experience of moving something so large.
Do you think that 50 Tons, 100 Tons, 1000 Tons would be feasible using the same method?
- Do you think that the large stone balls, originally found in Porto Rico, but now being discovered around the globe, could be the "spheres" (like you used) for VERY LARGE monoliths?

I don't think you have taken a hard look in Peru.. Look at the photos.. Seek the numbers/weights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saksaywaman
First Picture. That wall on the top of the page displays 2 styles of stone work.. the newer, uglier, with mortar fills in gaps.. like wall repair.
Why is the concept that the Incas FOUND the walls/structures and adopted them? Dozens of sites in Inca territory display that pattern. Sometimes 3 styles (like in Machu Pichu. Take a hard critical look at the difference in those stones... and how they were used to patch/extend walls. It was not used to "build the last 3ft", or consistently in any other way. Any interpretation other than repairs would be hard to justify... but I am all ears.

"sphinx"
For about 20 years now, the weathering on the Sphinx has brought folks to question its published age. I think the debate is over.. now we have to start moving to the consequences. The Sphinx is roughly 5k years older than previously thought. Egypt has not yet recognized the new age, but most experts in the field (as I understand) agree with the revised age.

Thank you for engaging honestly... I wish to learn, and will gladly share what I have learned.

BigNick

5/17/2017 07:51:22 pm

It's amazing what someone can accomplish when their livelihood depends on it. It always amazes me when people look at these things and say "There's no way humans could have done that." In my service territory, there is a 42" Cast iron gas main burried 8' to the top. It is several thousand feet long and was installed before the company had digging equipment. It's amazing to think about. I think the problem with the questions you ask is fringe "scholars" are trying to find the answer to a blue collar problem. I have seen on tv specials archeologists set up and test ways of lifting huge stones. Let some real workers try it. And repitition is key. If it takes 6 weeks to move the first block, it may take 6 hours to move the last one. They will tweak the system to make it as quick and easy as possible. The truly amazing thing about these sites is the power of an organized labor force.

Reply

Americanegro

5/17/2017 10:04:22 pm

Bingo. When I was learning to make stone tools I learned it's quite trying on the hands and as college students we were advised to wear gloves (a piece of animal skin would have worked) because we weren't going to do it enough to toughen the hands adequately. You hit the nail on the head with "a blue collar problem".

PeterF

5/20/2017 08:41:07 pm

BIGNICK -

Thank you for the reply.

I think it would be as scientifically fair to say "just throw enough people at it", as Graham's theories.

There is a ratio of manpower = output / manpower.. (more tech, less people, equal output)
It is a simplistic view, but illustrates your point.
Do you think that slave labor (as we believe was the source of labor) was clever enough to evolve the tech to meet the task?
And there has to be a point of diminishing returns... 10 Ton blocks may require 500 people to haul.. as you cross 15 Tons, the tools, ropes, etc start to give. (hypothetical numbers). You can keep throwing bodies at it, If the rope(s) keep breaking,, your bazillion slaves can't carve/haul it.

It just does not make practical sense to me. It seems like a bad explanation. And that is on top of the hard to explain sites whose quarries were hundreds of miles away, or those that have stones like Diorite. Perfectly carving Diorite is really difficult, even by today's standards. Again, scavenge photos if this tickles you. Many stonemasons look at some of these stones inner corners in awe.
Have you ever seen the Ellora Caves(India)? Official history books say they are about 2000 years old... Absolutelly AMAZING work (there is an entire temple, with all the decorations and statues, and architectural elements built INTO the rock). You cant make a mistake... Just look at it, and tell me, with a straight face, that a civilization that never built caves before, nor after, built those amazing structures.

In the end, we all have seen "enough". You have seen enough to make the decision that there is nothing of substance in these Ancient Civilization ideas.
I have looked enough that I believe the contrary. At the very least, I have seen enough that I don't think it can be discounted.

Puzzle pieces keep coming in. As long as the data is not manipulated, and we can have honest open dialogue about it, we will eventually know for sure.

Cheers Mates!

Ev Drew

7/19/2017 01:00:59 pm

PETERF, Brilliant reply...you are absolutely correct!

Reply

Diggs

5/18/2017 04:49:10 am

So what you are saying is that we need to get you & Hancock on the Joe Rogan show for a better debate? Haha.

I am not sure if I am allowed to ask this. But whatever happens with that accusation about Shermer a few years ago?

Reply

Zack

5/19/2017 04:07:40 pm

I found the debate frustrating because there is no hard evidence to support ANY theories regarding the Builders of GT - so why is Graham being singled out? The only indisputable data we have is the the stone structures exist and have been dated to about 12,000 years ago. That's it! That's all the data we have on the site. Any theories regarding who built the structure are pure speculation totally unsupported by any evidence. That means that Graham's theories regarding the Builders are exactly as plausible as any other researchers theories...because there is absolutely no evidence to prove or disprove ANY theory at this point in time.

For Michael to criticize Graham for not having physical evidence to support his theories is wildly disingenuous because NONE of the researchers currently making educated guesses and speculations about the possible Builders of GT have any hard evidence to support their theories either. We literally have not one shred of data in regards to who built GT - so how is Graham's lack of evidence somehow any different than any of the other 1,000 researchers also making educated guess and positing theories about the Builders without a shred of evidence to support their claims?

Reply

Tom Rose

5/20/2017 04:27:26 am

Zack says "Any theories regarding who built the structure are pure speculation totally unsupported by any evidence."

and goes on to say:

"That means that Graham's theories regarding the Builders are exactly as plausible as any other researchers theories."

It means no such thing! We do not need direct evidence to make a judgement about where a HYPOTHESIS stands on the scale of implausibility. Speculations about building methods that do not require an advanced technology are more plausible than those that do.

So the follow-up sentence is just irrelevant.

"..because there is absolutely no evidence to prove or disprove ANY theory at this point in time."

There may be no direct evidence, but

a) we know a lot about building in general
b) we have no good evidence of any advanced human civilisation in the distant past

"how is Graham's lack of evidence somehow any different ?"

It is different because it appeals to the existence of an advanced civilisation for which there is no strong independent evidence. Other speculations do not go beyond the skills and know how that we are sure would have been available to people 12,000 years ago.

Reply

Jason

5/20/2017 10:16:31 am

Yes, Well said.

Derrick

5/20/2017 03:42:26 pm

Well said, glad you took the time to write it

Zack

5/20/2017 07:16:11 pm

The Implausibility Scale? Haha! is that an Excel add-in I can download somewhere? The reality is that Graham formulated a perfectly rational, almost prosaic, HYPOTHESIS based on the evidence:

a) we know that nowhere on earth did any humans demonstrate this level of engineering or artistic sophistication at this time period.

b) the engineering and organization knowledge needed to construct this site seems to have appeared without any history and seemed to disappear suddenly.

So it is perfectly reasonable to form a hypothesis that - instead of this one group of hunter/gathers suddenly inventing engineering and agriculture with 24hrs - perhaps a heretofore previously unknown civilization (or known by currently unassociated with the site) had settled in this area and transferred a basic knowledge of seed agriculture and basic mathematics.

Let's define "advanced civilization" because you seem to find that term difficult. Any high school student that has a basic working knowledge of Geometry 101 and a basic working knowledge of how seeds work is ADVANCED compared to illiterate hunter/gathers with absolutely no knowledge of seeds or basic math.

If I took 100 high school seniors who got at least a C+ on their Calculus finals and took at least 2 years of FFA (farming/animal husbandry) and then dropped them off in the Amazon to settle with hunter/gathers tribes...they would be "god-like" in their knowledge and abilities. So we have some unremarkable 17 year olds who are an "advanced society" compared to hunter/gathers in the Amazon.

Suddenly the concept of a "advanced" civilization that managed to discover basic mathematics and how seeds work 10,200 years ago (before any other civilizations at that time) doesn't sound radically implausible and impossible.

It sounds pretty damn reasonable if not likely.

What sounds laughably implausible is to suggest that buck-naked hunter/gathers with no written language that spent 90 percent of the time following game herds across the plains...somehow!...managed to invent stone masonry and engineering in their spare time. And we (and no other culture on earth or in the region at the time) just happened not to notice.

Only Me

5/20/2017 08:37:27 pm

Zack, what gleaming armor you have sir!

I love how you say "we know" while calling Hancock's hypothesis "perfectly rational, almost prosaic". Fact is, neither he nor you know anything about Göbekli Tepe. Less than 5% of the site has been excavated, so, Hancock not bothering to talk to those who are actually working the site before adding it to his comet impact-Atlantis BS is premature, to put it politely.

He isn't an engineer, architect, anthropologist or archaeologist and never bothered to consult with any of the aforementioned. Why? Because he knows, unlike you, they would tear his hypothesis to shreds. Poseurs fear legitimate experts.

Ev Drew

7/19/2017 01:29:01 pm

TOM ROSE, You are making the typical disingenuous arguments and misrepresentations that hyper-skeptical individuals with control issues make.

Graham Hancock, as far as I can tell, makes his position quite clear. I have never heard him promote a mere "speculation" of his as definitive. But that doesn't stop people from you arguing so, does it?

The main idea I think Hancock is promoting, is to seriously take into consideration the writings and lore of ancient peoples when formulating historical hypotheses. Seems perfectly rational to me. Ignoring or dismissing them, as the "experts" often do, is the epitome of ignorance! It makes perfect sense that much of what they recorded was influenced by phenomena they experienced and explained in terms they related to. Modern individuals have the absurd expectation that the vernacular of today can effectively convey the figures of speech of ancient languages.

Troy was just a myth...until they found it! If you think the current scientific bureaucracy is being governed by earnest men with integrity, you are more gullible than believers of religious fairytales!

Jason

7/19/2017 03:50:29 pm

@Ev Drew -
I don't see how what Tom Rose said in his comment/ reply is either 'disingenuous' or 'misrepresentative' of what Graham Hancock is proposing (let alone the arguments that Zack is making in support of Hancock).
Tom and many others are simply pointing out that when you look at any hypothesis it can be judged on how plausible it is by applying some basic logic. Simpler theories tend to be preferable to more complex ones because with more complexity comes the need for more and more evidence to support them. Graham Hancock is making assumptions based on flawed logic: he assumes it mustn’t be possible for hunter gatherers to build such a structure, therefore an advanced civilization must have assisted. That is not solid scientific reasoning nor sound logic for that matter.
Granted, we can’t claim to know that some more advanced civilization did not exist at the time of GT being built, however no one has yet found any material evidence for one. Pointing to “the writings and lore of ancient peoples” would be far more convincing if we had any corroborating physical evidence for such an advanced civilization, unfortunately there isn’t any (as of yet). I would be more than willing to take Graham Hancock’s idea’s more serious if such evidence surfaced; I’m sure the scientific main stream would as well – they would be forced to.
I don’t understand the need to jump to conclusions before necessary evidence is in hand. The time to start believing something should be after there is sufficient reason to do so, not before.

“If you think the current scientific bureaucracy is being governed by earnest men with integrity, you are more gullible than believers of religious fairytales!”
This is just a little over the top don’t you think? --- We can agree that there are people within the scientific community that (for various reasons) are very biased toward certain hypotheses over others but that is often just an unfortunate side effect of what is in some cases a lifetime of study in one field or another for many scientists (and teachers for that matter). It should be obvious that it would be hard for someone to completely abandon a theory they’ve spent years studying and supporting even when new evidence comes in opposition to it. Let me be clear here though, this is not what is happening with Graham Hancock in this case. He is not bringing forth any new evidence here, or overturning anything in this field of science, it’s all just interpretations of history that more resemble story telling than science without supporting evidence.
So instead of looking at these sorts of issues in the scientific community in a nuanced way you’d rather suggest that *Science* is ‘governed’ by one overreaching group of people with a nefarious agenda? -- I think you are the one who is being “hyper-skeptical” here, perhaps even conspiratorial.

Ev Drew

7/19/2017 05:42:29 pm

@JASON

To falsely accuse Hancock of making claims himself, when he directly clarifies that he is simply considering the POV of other people, THAT is misrepresentation!

To falsely accuse Hancock of claiming a definitive explanation of historical events, when he clearly states he is only offering an idea for consideration in context to the evidence, THAT is misrepresentation!

I am a lover of truth. And science is, undoubtedly, the most reliable means of discerning truth. But in today's scientific climate, the personal biases, political agendas, and downright corruption of so-called "experts" have left the reputation of scientists in serious question! The scientific establishment has been wrong so many times, about so many things, they need to really STOP pretending such unquestionable authority!

Btw, I noticed all you did was jump to the defense of Tom. You didn't offer any valid rebuttal to my points. See...even with supposed "intellectuals" sound reasoning is an endangered species!

Jason

7/19/2017 06:49:33 pm

@ Ev Drew –
“To falsely accuse Hancock of making claims himself, when he directly clarifies that he is simply considering the POV of other people, THAT is misrepresentation!”

I’m confused, didn’t Graham Hancock write books on the subject of Atlantis and Gobekli Tepe? So you’re saying he doesn’t necessarily share these views but that he is merely speaking for others? So he isn’t arguing for an ancient civilization existing or that they were involved in building GT? Okay then why write a book about the subject if he doesn’t want people to think he believes what he is writing? This is, to put it mildly, a bizarre position to hold….

…But fine I’ll grant Hancock and you that he is simply considering the POV of other people. -- It makes no difference if the ideas he lays out in his books are his or others because it is the ideas (hypotheses) themselves that we are attacking. He or the people he speaks for (whomever that is - lol) have a flawed hypothesis. Happy now? This is so obviously a dodge though, and that is painfully clear. What a copout, write a book and then say: hey, I’m just a reporter reporting on these things – please don’t attack my book, they aren’t my ideas… just a reporter..etc..

“To falsely accuse Hancock of claiming a definitive explanation of historical events, when he clearly states he is only offering an idea for consideration in context to the evidence, THAT is misrepresentation!”

Yeah, that’s why we’re using the term hypothesis and not a ‘theory’. No one is falsely accusing anyone of anything here aside from you. Your description (“..offering an idea for consideration in context to the evidence”) is another way of just using the word HYPOTHESIS. Lol That’s why we use that term. So no one is making the claim that Hancock has offered a “definitive explanation of historical events”. -- That would require far more evidence and would be referred to as a Theory in science.

So to reiterate, again, the *hypothesis* Hancock (or whoever he’s speaking for… still laughing at that) is making in regard to Gobekli Tepe is a very poor one not based in any material evidence or solid reasoning.

“Btw, I noticed all you did was jump to the defense of Tom. You didn't offer any valid rebuttal to my points. See...even with supposed "intellectuals" sound reasoning is an endangered species!”

That’s a confusing bit of language. What points didn’t I rebut? Or did you mean that none of my rebuttals were valid? If the latter is the case, I don’t trust you to evaluate anything in terms of validity, considering your misunderstanding of the word hypothesis. lol

Jason

7/19/2017 07:17:07 pm

@ Ev Drew
Oh and this talk about science having been wrong so many times... etc. Yes, of course it get things wrong, it's all about progress, we believe one thing for a while, more *evidence* comes in and we refine and in some cases overturn our current understanding. -- That's all part and parcel in science. How would you propose we do science? Would you rather we hold trials for any scientist that makes an error and put them in jail because we deem them liars? I mean you're talking as if science should be infallible. Yeah, errors are made all the time... so what, errors are caught and we move on.

Scientists are just human beings, some are good, some are terrible, but the bottom line is that ideas stand on there own and are subject to cross examination.... Good science stands up to scrutiny and bad science doesn't, that how it works.

I've never understood this idea of the scientific community being inherently corrupt and an establishment that is more politics than substance. Sure there are politics involved but again, science can be scrutinized by anyone who chooses to look at it. It's not a closed system of authority, and thank goodness it isn't.

Ev Drew

7/19/2017 01:07:08 pm

Exactly!

Reply

Jason

5/20/2017 12:54:55 am

...."so how is Graham's lack of evidence somehow any different than any of the other 1,000 researchers also making educated guess and positing theories about the Builders without a shred of evidence to support their claims?"

The difference here is that a main stream hypothesis would likely only include the facts as we know them (i.e. some version of a hunter gatherer culture known to exist in that period) as opposed to what Hancock's doing - proposing that a highly advanced (yet untraceable) civilization was necessarily responsible for such a structure. A sound hypothesis would apply Occam's razor in order to weed out this kind of fallacious reasoning.

Graham Hancock is in essence engaged in one big argument from incredulity fallacy with all of this lost civilization nonsense.

Reply

Zack

5/20/2017 07:25:49 pm

Let's define an "advanced society." Any civilization 10,200 years ago that had a basic working knowledge of rudimentary high school Geometry and a basic understanding of how seeds work would be considered WILDLY advanced to any hunter/gather society that had no knowledge of writing, math, or how seeds work (i.e. agriculture).

We know that the people at that time and living in that region had demonstrated absolutely no knowledge of engineering, agriculture, or stone masonry. None. So it's plausible and reasonable to speculate that perhaps a heretofore unknown civilization (or a KNOWN sea-faring civilization not yet definitively associated with the site) may have made contact with the people of this region and transferred some basic, rudimentary knowledge that the totally illiterate hunter/gathers didn't have.

Again, I want to stress that being "advanced" in comparison to an illiterate and nomadic hunter/gather society does not require aliens of knowledge of supercomputers. All that is required is the knowledge the a high school freshman already possesses.

Basic knowledge of rudimentary geometry and basic knowledge of how seeds work.

That's it!

That's all it requires to have a knowledge base orders of magnitude greater than a hunter/gather society.

That doesn't sound so implausible, does it?

Reply

Only Me

5/20/2017 09:03:54 pm

"That doesn't sound so implausible, does it?"

Hell yes, it does. You said:

"a) we know that nowhere on earth did any humans demonstrate this level of engineering or artistic sophistication at this time period.

b) the engineering and organization knowledge needed to construct this site seems to have appeared without any history and seemed to disappear suddenly."

You also say:

"So it's plausible and reasonable to speculate that perhaps a heretofore unknown civilization (or a KNOWN sea-faring civilization not yet definitively associated with the site) may have made contact with the people of this region and transferred some basic, rudimentary knowledge that the totally illiterate hunter/gathers didn't have."

Your unknown civilization/known sea-faring civilization is implausible for the same reasons you outlined above. For this civilization to accomplish what you're speculating, it would have to violate point A. Without evidence for this civilization, if it accomplished what you're speculating, it would violate point B.

See the implausibility?

PeterF

5/20/2017 09:24:45 pm

On point a)

We DON'T know for sure. We are finding new sites, and some are amazing, (we could just focus on pyramids and megaliths)

Point b is correct.

But this is mostly mincing words.

For a while now, I have believed that Peru holds more answers.
We dont have to excavate any more to see what is plain to the eye: different construction techniques.. not a single site, but multiple sites. Look at the walls in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saksaywaman

And tell me that the same civilization built gorgeous monolithic walls and then patched it with small blocks that you would think belonged in a Fred Flintstone episode.

Jason

5/22/2017 10:27:16 am

Zack, it's not that what Graham Hancock is saying is necessarily wrong, it's just that he has no real foundation from which to make such claims - yet - using the current evidence. Again, until there is any good evidence for a civilization existing from that period like the one Graham is proposing we should just stick to the facts. It's just about the application of occam's razor nothing more. If and when they unearth better evidence of some other civilization existing we should assume otherwise.

And on another point, I don't think the assumption being made by the main stream since discovering GT is that the people of the time we're necessarily just dumb Hunter gatherers that had no skills beyond basic survival, but that they were necessarily much more sophisticated than was previously believed; that's it. As Shermer pointed out, perhaps the people of that time in that specific area were in some transitional level of technology as far as building technology but hadn't developed agriculture yet or we're just starting to discover it. Who knows, but we can only follow the evidence and let that be the guide as opposed to wild speculation that would require a bunch more evidence to support it. Sorry to keep repeating the same concept but it really is the most reliable methodology we have - it's the same scientific method we've used to learn all that we know to present.

Graham Hancock is a very creative writer and thinker and I don't hate his ideas in fact they are very interesting. Having said that I can also say with relative certainty that his 'theories' (unfounded hypotheses) will continue to be brushed aside by the main stream until he starts to apply proper scientific method and reasoning in his work or until a great deal more evidence is unearthed to begin supporting​ his ideas. Unfortunately for him neither is yet the case.

Tom Rose

5/21/2017 01:50:45 pm

There comes a point where further engagement in rational, reasonable discussion with some people becomes pointless.

Reply

Ev Drew

7/19/2017 01:31:52 pm

Wow! You contributes a single reply, then make a statement like that?

What an embarrassingly arrogant and ignorant person you just revealed yourself to be!

This reminds me of how when you debate people you definitely must be familiar with the topic under discussion. There might be a broad general knowledge one can bring to any debate, but that doesn't help in cases like this. It also reminds of magicians being able to trick some scientists -- one without a background in perceptual psychology, for instance -- into believing they're really making things teleport or disappear.

I'm in the first hour. So far, everything you've said about Hancock being an idiot and Shermer being ineffective and failing is spot on. Not sure if I can make it through the whole thing. That's the problem with Rogan's show. I don't have 2, 3, 4 hours to spare listening. (I nab the podcast, hate YouTube)

Shermer makes a supremely dull-witted point at 1/10:38: "we have all this evidence over here, one anomaly here, so we bend over backwards to accommodate the anomaly"

EVERY scientific advance and insight has come from the consideration of the "anomalies" of the preceding prevailing theories. Thomas Khun's theory of the Structure of scientific Revolutions is thereby often referred to as "anomaly-crisis-paradigm shift".

There is plenty of evidence that the sun goes around the Earth, and people believed this for millennia until Galileo and Copernicus observed "anomalies" that reversed this scenario.

Newtonian physics was upended by Einstein's examination of "anomalies" that went unnoticed and/or unconsidered by all the great scientists before him.

Ditto for most other scientific paradigm shifts.

The apparent water erosion of the Sphinx' enclosure is either factual or not. If the erosion was indeed caused by water, then the case is closed; the enclosure was dug 12,000 years ago when there was water, and not later when there was none,

If the Sphinx was built at this earlier date, then Gobleki Tepe is far from unique, and no-one can claim that the Sphinx was created by "hunger gatherers" in any sense of the term.

Speaking of water, Shemrer is in way over his head in this discussion.

I think it's a bit more complicated. It's not that anomalies don't get recognized, noticed, or considered. They do, but their interpretation changes. In the Einstein case, I think physicists before him did recognize and consider the anomalies that led to STR. In the late 19th century, for instance, Lorentz and FitzGerald were already coming up with an explanation for the Michelson–Morley experiment.

Experiment on equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass were done and known long before GTR. Ditto for the precession of Mercury's orbit.

I think Shermer is in over his head, but that's more because he was trying to score general points without knowing the specifics of these cases raised. Had he known, he might see that Hancock is merely speculating on most of his points.

Reply

Frank

5/27/2017 12:17:05 pm

To apply a little humor, even bad humor, will explain why the Egyptian Sphinx show signs of water erosion. Perhaps the Egyptians, like a proud new car owner, wanted to keep their newly sculptured monument clean and shiny, and therefore they washed it often. However, again, same as a new car owner, after a while, the novelty high begins to wear off and little care is then given to their once new pride and joy. And that is why the great Sphinx still shows sign of having been washed too often in the past.

But perhaps those water marks on the Sphinx and its surrounding barrier was caused by a freak event, and a onetime brief change in the normal dry weather pattern of the area. Perhaps by the massive volcanic eruption of Thera. It has been scientifically known that such massive eruptions do have an effect on the climate.

We are told that in 1883, the explosion of Krakatoa created volcanic winter-like conditions. The four years following the explosion were unusually cold, and the winter of 1887-1888 included powerful blizzards. Record snowfalls were recorded worldwide. And in hot climate areas like Egypt, perhaps there were record rainfalls, which would have been responsible for those apparent signs of water erosion. And since the Thera eruption has been, scientifically, shown to have occurred around 1,500 BC, give or take a couple of C-notes in years, then the Sphinx must have been built around the date as previously established, before some amateur, alternative Egyptologist and mystic, noted and questioned the age given to that monument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis

Reply

Chap

5/24/2017 08:57:56 am

"We know (assume) that the people (that we currently have evidence of) at that time and living in that region had (as far as we currently know) demonstrated absolutely no knowledge of engineering, agriculture, or stone masonry. None (that has been uncovered so far). "

I suspect that you might be making your point in too subtle a manner for some of the readers of this 'blog

Reply

Zack

5/24/2017 09:55:21 am

There is absolutely no evidence to prove or disprove ANY hypothesis about the Builders of the site at this point. It's all guesswork and supposition. So it's a little silly (perhaps even laughable) when people try to disprove a hypothesis by breathlessly shouting, "But there is no evidence to prove his claims conclusively!" Agreed...there is absolutely no evidence to prove or disprove ANY hypothesis regarding the skill level, literacy, or clothing styles of the Builders. None, aside from the fact that the stone actually exist. Aside from the stones themselves we have absolutely no data on the Builders.

So....how can anyone disagree with Graham's hypothesis scientifically? Basically all anyone who disagrees with his hypothesis is fundamentally saying is, "Well I don't FEEL like that's true. I- I just don't believe it!"

Graham's critics on this topic have no evidence. They are just saying, "Yeah, but I just don't think what he's saying is it's plausible." Fine, but that in and of itself is not evidence of...well, anything. It's just an opinion totally unsupported by any facts.

Reply

Tom

5/24/2017 11:28:46 am

You seem determined to stick up for Graham Hancock.

The totally rational thing to say on matters like this is to say "I don't know". Anyone can make up a self-consistent story of how some seemingly impossible feat was achieved and it seems to me that most people are happier to believe any half-way plausible explanation than to say "I don't know", even one for which there is no evidence.

As for Graham's "hypothesis" it is not much a hypothesis as it is not testable.

But is simply is not true to say that any story we make up is equally plausible, and it is underhanded of you to pretend otherwise.

Only Me

5/24/2017 01:42:20 pm

"Aside from the stones themselves we have absolutely no data on the Builders."

That's precisely why Hancock's hypothesis is not equally plausible. You are declaring it as such by making two points you feel disqualify the hunter-gatherers from being the actual builders of Göbekli Tepe while conveniently ignoring how those same points also apply to the speculative lost civilization Hancock proposes. Both of you are, in effect, removing agency from people KNOWN to exist and granting that agency to a civilization that hasn't been proven to exist.

Attributing the construction of Göbekli Tepe to the unknown over the known, without evidence, is not of equal standing to the current hypothesis put forward by scientists that are working at the site.

Zack

5/24/2017 02:12:23 pm

Have the researchers who believe the site was constructed by hunter-gathers proved their case with evidence?

No.

So why is the Brotherhood of Skeptics high-fiving each other as if they have "proved" something? "Yeah! We got Graham! He didn't have the evidence to back up his crazy claims!"

Uh....but neither do you. Neither does ANY researcher (at this point) have ANY evidence to prove or disprove ANY hypothesis in regards to the Builders.

Saying, "Eh, sounds like bullshit" does not qualify as scientific skepticism. It does meet the basic definition of trolling through. And isn't that what Graham's critics are doing? Saying, "Eh, sounds like bullshit" without a single shred of irrefutable evidence to support their own hypothesis?

Both hypothesis are equally plausible given the very limited amount of evidence. Saying Graham doesn't have evidence to prove his hypothesis is disingenuous in the sense that it IMPLIES his critics do have some "evidence" and that Graham has failed to explain away or disprove the evidence they have.

But there is no evidence.

There are only hypotheses and educated guesses based on the stone masonry and carvings.

My broader point is not so much a defense of Graham but a critique of what is passing for "skepticism" in 2017. Attacking a hypothesis for not having conclusive evidence to support it when, in fact, NO ONE has any conclusive evidence in support of any hypothesis seems to serve no actual purpose aside from trolling. No one has any proof of anything at this point - so what precisely is the purpose of singling out Graham alone and saying, "But he doesn't have any irrefutable proof"?

Only Me

5/24/2017 02:28:49 pm

"Neither does ANY researcher (at this point) have ANY evidence to prove or disprove ANY hypothesis in regards to the Builders."

Wrong.

Flint tools have been found in situ. There are also thousands of animal bones, cereals and other plant material and a few human bones, which would support the presence of a workforce using those tools. The site itself was used for almost 2,000 years, with lower sections being backfilled before newer structures were made. All C14 dates were taken from the organic material within the backfill.

And where did all this information come from? Klaus Schmidt, who excavated the site from 1994 until his death over two decades later.

The available evidence points to the hunter-gatherers, not some lost civilization for which there is NO evidence.

Zack

5/24/2017 02:30:09 pm

One final observation to serve as food for thought:

At what point (if any) would any of you consider a technology or demonstration of knowledge so anomalous as to warrant hypothesizing influence by an outside civilization?

The main point of contention seems to be that some people on this thread are convinced that the construction of the site - albeit unusual for the time period - is perfectly within the capabilities of the hunter-gathers that created it.

Is there any level of skill or knowledge that could be uncovered at the site that anyone would consider anomalous -- or would you simply insist that if it was found there, then it must have been built there?

For example:

If you were excavating a Native American site in America and came across animal skins, arrows, and the remains of turquoise jewelry you would, naturally, find these items to be expected and consistent with what we know about the culture and history of Native Americans in North America during that time period.

But what if you also found buried at the site a rifle?

Would you assume, "Oh! We must have wildly underestimated the knowledge base of Native American Indians! Clearly they had knowledge of mining, metallurgy, gunpowder, and ballistics. I guess we just underestimated what Native Americans could do." Or would it be more reasonable to conclude that the level of sophistication needed to construct a rifle was so inconsistent with the knowledge Native Americans had demonstrated before and after the dating of the rifle find that that it is more plausible to hypothesis that the rifle may have been gifted to the tribe by a different civilization?

Only Me

5/24/2017 02:44:42 pm

In regards to your last comment, Zack, you seem to be unaware Hancock's claim, which you are trying to argue for, is easily disproven.

Hancock has said:

"At the very least it [Göbekli Tepe] would mean that some as yet unknown and unidentified people somewhere in the world had already mastered all the arts and attributes of a high civilization more than twelve thousand years ago in the depths of the last Ice Age and sent out emissaries around the world to spread the benefits of their knowledge.”

He also said, “our ancestors are being initiated into the secrets of metals, and how to make swords and knives.” Unfortunately, Göbekli Tepe lacks clay pottery and metalworking...two signs of an advanced culture.

So, if Hancock's lost civilization spread out and shared their knowledge so the hunter-gatherers could build Göbekli Tepe, where are the metal tools and pottery? Or any other evidence?

Zack

5/24/2017 03:05:49 pm

You're asking where are the pottery shards from 12,000 years ago? And what of metal? Would metal actually survive for 12,000 years...or would it rust?

There is an interesting book worth reading called "World Without Us" by Alan Weisman. In this book he explains how materials breakdown and explains how a typical American city - within just 500 years - would almost be totally gone, reclaimed by nature and the forces of entropy. The wood would have rotten, the houses would all collapse, the metal would rust, etc. Basically the only thing that would survive would be plastic - which we know wasn't in use 12,000 years ago. Or at least we haven't found any plastic Burger King cup equivalents dated to 12,000 years ago yet.

So the argument is, 'Where is the irrefutable physical evidence?"

The rebuttal is, "After 12,000 years there would be no irrefutable surviving evidence. If the city of Detroit was suddenly depopulated and left un-lived in for 12,000 years....there would be almost no evidence that anyone actually lived there. So a society, especially a pre-industrial society, would produce no artifacts that could survive 12,000 years. And what little did miraculously survive 12,000 years of weather and warfare could never be conclusively tied to....anyone. How can you prove a 4 inch pot shard is directly and irrefutably tied to a specific civilization?"

So is it reasonable to ask for paper, metal, or animal skin artifacts after 12,000 years?

I believe most scientists would argue no. Which is why they are left with mostly speculating and making hypothesis.

Only Me

5/24/2017 03:57:05 pm

"So is it reasonable to ask for paper, metal, or animal skin artifacts after 12,000 years?"

No one asked for paper or animal skins. Did you completely ignore the evidence I gave you? Animal bones, human bones, plant material dating to 9000 BCE.

The oldest metal artifact was discovered in Tel Tsaf, an archaeological site in Israel. It dates to 5100 BCE. The oldest pottery found is from a Chinese cave and has been dated to between 19,000-20,000 years ago. Now, if pottery and metal artifacts were buried in the backfill at Göbekli Tepe, the desert environment would allow them to survive.

The answer to your question is yes.

The lack of such artifacts, thus far, debunks Hancock's idea about contact between an advanced lost civilization and the people who built Göbekli Tepe.

Jason

5/24/2017 04:38:06 pm

"So why is the Brotherhood of Skeptics high-fiving each other as if they have "proved" something? "Yeah! We got Graham! He didn't have the evidence to back up his crazy claims!"

lol - Try not to take this all so personally. Graham Hancock is obviously a very creative guy who has thought deeply about this subject but has failed to pass scientific scrutiny with what he proposes.

I’m guessing that this will all fall on deaf ears but here goes again…

No one here claims to have proved or disproved anything as far as I can tell. What we're all talking about is how likely a hypothesis is to be true based on the available facts. Graham's idea's may have been considered plausible by the main stream if there was (at the least) any good evidence for another civilization existing in that place and time.. or even near that place.

But still you wonder why so many dismiss Hancock's ideas? Well for starters, scientists tend to reject hypotheses that are unnecessarily complicated and therefore harder to build a case for. As soon as you invoke anything outside of what we have evidence for you are by definition complicating the matter more than is necessary. That was another attempt at describing the principal of Occam’s Razor… again. Why must I repeat myself?

Okay so if we have only evidence for a hunter and gatherer society existing in that region and period then we should do our best to hypothesize within those parameters. Graham Hancock however not only over complicates things by suggesting there is a lost civilization but goes much further by telling elaborate stories about who the people must have been, how they must have contacted the hunter gatherers in that region. etc. etc.. And, all of this in great detail as if he has more evidence available to him than everyone else working in the field. This is the type of thing that is far outside the realm of science and crosses into the realm of science fiction.

Furthermore, all along in this discussion you seem to have been making the assumption that a Hunter Gatherer society just could not have had the time, resources or the expertise to build such a structure. But, if we look at what the research suggests, hunter gatherer societies have been shown to flourish in areas of rich plant growth and animal presence and in fact can have a great deal of extra time for other things apart from just plain survival; for example improving their technology for stone work and carving etc. Human culture inclusive of creativity and technological advancement has been shown to have existed far before evidence of agriculture appeared in the archaeological record. Therefore it should not be unreasonable to suggest that some version of a hunter gatherer society could indeed have built something akin to GT. Again, no one is saying this with certainty or that any of this is a proven fact or that Graham Hancock's hypothesis is in any way 'disproved', just that most scientists believe the Hunter Gatherer hypothesis to be the far more likely one based on what anyone can actually examine from the site.

If you'd rather Graham Hancock's ideas be supported by the main stream in science you'll have to change the way science is done at its core or teach Hancock about basic logical fallacies in argument and the difference between storytelling and valid scientific methodology. Either way, good luck with all that. ;-)

Zack

5/24/2017 05:17:11 pm

Jason -

They found animal bones and flint tools at the site of a intricately carved megalithic stone structure,

Which is the simplest explanation:

a) a society of humans with only crude flint tools (in common use in the Neolithic area) quarried, carved, and then carried 20 ton stones and then set them upright

or

b) crude Neolithic flint tools are NOT actually suitable tools for being able to quarry and carve a 20 ton stone and a simpler explanation is that the stones were not actually carved by them?

Sometimes the simplest explanations are actually the most preposterous.

Again I give you the example of the 200 year old Native America excavation. You find animal bones, remains of a tepee, and simple flint arrows. You also find a flintlock rifle.

The SIMPLEST explanation is to conclude that obviously the person who created the simple flint arrows must(!) have also had knowledge of metallurgy and ballistics because - hey! - the rifle was found at the site! The simplest explanation is that the society used simple tools....and (apparently) also knew how to mine and smelt ore to make metal guns and bullets.

What is the other possibility? That some magically "advanced" society just showed up one day from overseas and gave them this technology?

Eh, sounds implausible. Clearly early native Americans had advanced knowledge of metallurgy and also knew how to make gunpowder. The rifle found at the site and dated to the exact same age as the flint arrows proves it must be so.

It's the simplest explanation, right?

Jason

5/24/2017 06:52:23 pm

Zack, your native American example is at best a straw man argument since you're the one that believes the site is such a huge leap in technology - I don't agree that it is.

But even if I granted you that with the "crude flint tools" they must have been using (you assume they were using) were inadequate to get the job done then where are all these advanced tools you assume the other more advanced society must have used? You can't have it both ways. The truth is we don't have a clear idea of what tools or techniques they had at their disposal.

As I said, I don't agree that the structure is such an inexplicable jump in technology that you and Graham Hancock claim it to be. I'll grant you that we don't have older examples of these types of structures but that doesn't therefore mean that the people in that region couldn't have created them.

You keep making assumptions about what MUST have been required of a particular culture to do what the builders were able to do and keep stating that it would not be possible for a hunter gatherer culture to do it. How do you know any of this?

You can't see how it is all possible so you must insert this extra thing into the mix to fill the gaps in knowledge (your undetectable lost civilization) and say they must have done it without any evidence. Sorry to break it to you again, but this is still just one big argument from incredulity. You can paint it any way you like but that's what your argument boils down to.

Just as Shermer said, ask yourself why aren't Hancock's ideas accepted by the main stream? Is it all just ego from the "establishment"? Some grand conspiracy? Or is it simply that he refuses to conform to proper scientific method and prefers to tell elaborate stories to explain away archaeological findings.

Joe Scales

5/24/2017 09:36:20 pm

"There is absolutely no evidence to prove or disprove ANY hypothesis about the Builders of the site at this point."

Flavor of the Month: argumentum ad ignorantiam

Ev Drew

7/19/2017 01:36:45 pm

TOM, The Big Bang Theory is far more than a hypothesis, and it IS NOT TESTABLE! Some of your points are just absurd!

Jason

7/19/2017 11:08:10 pm

@Ev Drew
Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you but I'm afraid you are absolutely wrong about the Big Bang theory not being testable.

The big bang theory like all valid scientific theories is indeed testable.

The theory can be used to make certain predictions that can be confirmed through observation and measurements that *test* the state of the observable universe.

The expansion of the universe, the Cosmic Microwave Background and the abundance and distribution of Helium are all examples of things that can be accurately measured and subsequently compared to predictions the big bang theory makes (using mathematical models).

Zack

5/24/2017 05:01:03 pm

You wrote:

"Flint tools have been found in situ. There are also thousands of animal bones, cereals and other plant material and a few human bones, which would support the presence of a workforce using those tools."

Okay...and that conclusively proves what exactly?

We know agriculture existed at the site. Just the calories necessary to physically move the stones from the quarry basically demand that whoever the Builders were had a steady access to calories that only a knowledge of farming and keeping animals could provide. So that agriculture and animal-keeping were used is in itself not in dispute by anyone.

What's debatable and being debated by researches is the seemingly inconsistent technologies found at the site. We've got exceedingly primitive tools being found at a megalithic site which many researchers do not believe could be constructed using those primitive tools.

Imagine finding the buried remains of a 5 story steel frame building carbon dated to 12,000 years ago.

Now imagine archaeologists finding flint tools and animal bones at the site and also dated to 12,000 years ago.

Would the next logical conclusion be to proclaim that the people using the flint tools must have constructed the 5 story steel frame building....or would the primitive tools be inconsistent with the the engineering of the building and thus suggestive (but not conclusive) of the building being constructed by a different civilization with more advanced engineering knowledge?

"But they found animal bones!" the skeptics cry. "And crude flint tools identical to those in use in the Neolithic age!"

Yes, and that level of technology seems wildly inconsistent to some experts and researchers (not just Graham) with the level of engineering and stone masonry demonstrated at the site.

Could the Builders have chiseled megalithic stone monuments using only crude flint tools in common use by Neolithic hunter-gathers? It can't be conclusively ruled out...but it's a real stretch to claim that they self-evidently could.

A researcher would need to basically fashion a flint tool and then carve a giant block of stone with it to prove it actually could be done.

Reply

Only Me

5/24/2017 06:12:29 pm

"What is the other possibility? That some magically 'advanced' society just showed up one day from overseas and gave them this technology?"

It amazes me you are incapable of understanding what means. Yes, that sums up the entire problem with Hancock's hypothesis. It requires an inexplicably advanced society to work.

And what is the hypothesis actually arguing for? Two things: hyperdiffusionism and that the proposed lost civilization is Atlantis. Neither have any real-world or scientific basis.

You argue primitive tools could not be used to construct the site. How then, do you explain away the quarries AT THE SITE? The stones are crystalline limestone; limestone is relatively easy to cut into blocks or more elaborate carving. Flint, on the other hand, is a hard, sedimentary form of the mineral quartz. The tools were harder than the building material, so no problem there. By the way, there are three T-shaped pillars that were never moved from the quarries. The biggest one is 7 meters in length and may weigh 50 tons. It lies on the northern part of the plateau with the other two lying on the southern part.

There really isn't anything inconsistent with the hypothesis put forward by the archaeologists.

Reply

Jason

5/24/2017 07:05:16 pm

ONLY ME - Well said. I wish I hadn't bothered writing my last comment since you seem to be doing a better job with less words and more facts. lol

Only Me

5/24/2017 08:16:28 pm

@Jason

Well, Zack has been civil and raised counter-arguments I can address. I include facts to show Göbekli Tepe isn't a complete mystery.

Here are some more facts to consider.

We know the Egyptians, the Tiwanaku and the Eastern Islanders used simple pounding stones to quarry granite, andesite, red sandstone, limestone and volcanic rock. As long as the stones are harder than the quarried material, all you need is a large enough work force. The Egyptians and the Tiwanaku used polishing stones and sand to polish the finished blocks.

Now, what advanced tools did the Egyptians and the Tiwanaku possess that the people of Göbekli Tepe did not? For the Egyptians, blunt copper saws that relied on sand to do the actual cuts and copper chisels. For the Tiwanaku, chisels made from a copper-arsenic-nickel alloy. Notice these tools are made from metal, something conspicuously absent from Göbekli Tepe.

Hancock claims Atlantean survivors gave "all the arts and attributes of a high civilization" the people of Göbekli Tepe. So, where are those metal tools? For the sake of argument, let's say those tools are gone. Where are the mines to get the raw metals and the molds used to create those tools? Where's the written language that would have made the construction planning more efficient? The more questions that are asked from what we know of other cultures, the less plausible Hancock's hypothesis becomes.

Zack

5/25/2017 09:46:48 am

Skeptic: I will admit an outside civilization (with basic knowledge of geometry and stone masonry) interacted with the hunter-gathers at GT if there is evidence for it.

"What evidence would you accept?"

Skeptic: Evidence found at the site that proves it came from an outside civilization and could not have been made by the inhabitants of the site.

Circular logic in 3...2...1

Skeptic: However, anything found at the site MUST mean that the people at the site created it themselves. So whatever you find there is only further proof that the people who lived there must have created it! But having said that, I will accept any evidence found at the site that can be conclusively proved to have come from outside that society.

So the skeptic will accept evidence of an outside civilization if it's found at the site, but anything found at the site de facto means it could only have been created by the hunter-gathers at the site.

So, no, there is no data that can ever be found that could convince a skeptic otherwise because they have already determined that ANYTHING found at the site was created by the inhabitants of the site. Flint tools? Proof only that the inhabitants made flint tools. Megalithic structures? Proof that the hunter-gathers could build megalithic structures obviously. A car battery? Clearly proof that the inhabitants knew how to make batteries, of course. A word for word copy of Stephen King's best seller "It" written in Egyptian hieroglyphs? Pure coincidence and proof of nothing! Clearly they independently created a system of writing similar to hieroglyphs and, hey, "It" was such a good story that surely over 12,000 someone was bound to have told a similar tale. Now show me the "proof" of this magical/mythical super-advanced society made up of rainbows, unicorns, and UFO's. Show me the proof!

Obviously I'm kidding - but it demonstrates that the "evidence" that the skeptics claim they will accept will never exist because all evidence (no matter how unusual or anomalous) will ONLY further support the theory they have already developed. That the people at that site created everything themselves.

In many ways this flavor of skepticism (against Graham's hypothesis which he freely admits there is no irrefutable evidence to prove) seems indistinguishable from that of anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, or Christians studying the Shroud of Turin.

To those skeptics no data is ever conclusive. The anti-vaxxers still insist vaccines cause autism and have a perfectly "rational" rebuttal for all studies that demonstrate otherwise. All Christians find the studies and methodologies that prove the Shroud is not the actual burial shroud of Jesus to be "flawed and biased and not based on real science."

Only Me

5/25/2017 03:16:22 pm

"So the skeptic will accept evidence of an outside civilization if it's found at the site,"

Correct.

"but anything found at the site de facto means it could only have been created by the hunter-gathers at the site."

Until there is compelling evidence that proves otherwise, yes.

"Obviously I'm kidding - but it demonstrates that the "evidence" that the skeptics claim they will accept will never exist because all evidence (no matter how unusual or anomalous) will ONLY further support the theory they have already developed. That the people at that site created everything themselves."

This part of your comment demonstrates to me you clearly have no understanding of how science works. I can't say I'm surprised, as your previous comments demonstrated how little you actually knew about Göbekli Tepe itself.

Americanegro

5/26/2017 07:33:57 pm

@Zack: "All Christians find the studies and methodologies that prove the Shroud is not the actual burial shroud of Jesus to be 'flawed and biased and not based on real science.'"

You're talking nonsense, son. Be smarter.

Jason

5/24/2017 07:28:28 pm

I'd like to make my own (unfounded) claim! I'd like to suggest that "Zack" is in fact Graham Hancock. I have no good evidence for it but I just can't imagine how it could be anyone else. See, I can engage in fallacious reasoning too.
;-)

Reply

Tom

5/25/2017 02:44:24 am

Hey Zack,

You are free to choose to believe whatever made-up explanations you like, despite there being more likely possibilities.

The bottom line is that not all possible hypotheses are equally likely, and we are never completely without knowledge to make some judgement about which hypotheses are more and less likely.

You can keep throwing out logically flawed arguments until you are blue in the face. But you are not going to change the minds of all these restrained and polite commenters that understand better than you how science works, and can recognise a logical fallacy when they see one.

Reply

Zack

5/25/2017 09:53:14 am

Speaking of logic, I'm going to reprint my previous rebuttal because it perfectly sums up the logical error several of you are making.

Skeptic: I will admit an outside civilization (with basic knowledge of geometry and stone masonry) interacted with the hunter-gathers at GT if there is evidence for it.

"What evidence would you accept?"

Skeptic: Evidence found at the site that proves it came from an outside civilization and could not have been made by the inhabitants of the site.

Circular logic in 3...2...1

Skeptic: However, anything found at the site MUST mean that the people at the site created it themselves. So whatever you find there is only further proof that the people who lived there must have created it! But having said that, I will accept any evidence found at the site that can be conclusively proved to have come from outside that society.

So the skeptic will accept evidence of an outside civilization if it's found at the site, but anything found at the site de facto means it could only have been created by the hunter-gathers at the site.

---

Seems like a pretty glaring logical error on the part of the skeptics to me.

You've predetermined that anything found at the site must have been made at the site.

Any evidence found at the site will only support the theory you have already developed.

How is this significantly different than anti-vaxxers who have pre-determined that vaccines cause autism and reject out of hand any study or data that proves otherwise? The anti-vaxxers will claim they are open to evidence that proves vaccines doesn't cause autism, yet they have already pre-determined that any science or corporation or government evidence is flawed or biased.

Reply

Jason

5/25/2017 10:01:26 am

This is truly entertaining. Thanks Zack! ;-)
Two words: Straw man

Only Me

5/25/2017 03:06:46 pm

"You've predetermined that anything found at the site must have been made at the site."

No, that is the logical conclusion based on the evidence. It would take separate evidence to suggest in situ artifacts or the knowledge to construct the complex came from elsewhere.

"Any evidence found at the site will only support the theory you have already developed."

Again, it's the logical conclusion. Before anyone can say it's wrong, they have to explain why. Strange how the same methodology that properly attributes the pyramids to the Egyptians, Puma Punku to the Tiwanaku and Chichén Itzá to the Maya was correct then, but is somehow wrong about Göbekli Tepe.

"Seems like a pretty glaring logical error on the part of the skeptics to me."

Because you can't accept the conclusions based on the evidence. You apparently prefer an unprovable fantasy where Atlantis was destroyed and the survivors spread across the world to share their collective knowledge with lesser cultures. I will take science developed over centuries over the imagination of an author who declares himself a journalist who is merely reporting when his ideas are challenged.

Ev Drew

7/19/2017 01:39:42 pm

Tom, while some of what you say is sound reasoning, you have also been guilty of using logical fallacies. Hypocrisy is one of the most disgusting qualities in a human being!

Reply

Harry

5/25/2017 07:05:45 pm

Shermer was absolutely destroyed. Even Rogan was like, "Really dude?"

Reply

Ev Drew

7/19/2017 02:08:19 pm

Regardless, of whether or not Graham Hancock's ideas have any credence, this was a hugely revealing engagement.

Yes, Hancock was a bit emotional. But, typically egocentric critics clearly fail to acknowledge the extreme amount of misrepresentation and logical fallacy that the "experts" attack him with. I can certainly understand how that would irritate the shit out of someone. He handled it better than I would have!

What was glaringly obvious was the hyper-inflated egos and arrogant dismissiveness on the part of the "experts".

Michael Shermer is a disgraceful fraud! I used to appreciate his skeptical approach until it became clear that it is a steadfast religion for him. He couldn't care less about the truth. He made up his mind a long time ago, about everything, and he won't budge an inch. You want undeniable proof of how truly dishonest this guy is, watch him refuse to accept the overwhelming results of an experiment HE DESIGNED to test the validity of readings given by a Vedic astrologer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhMsyfhMLH8

Further, the JACKASS scientist Shermer brought on was the icing on the cake. Not only did he offer the most illogical and poorly reasoned arguments...to the point of embarrassment...he absolutely emanated arrogance and contempt!

There you have it folks! The sad truth revealed for all to see...that these supposed "experts" and "authorities" are some of the most ignorant, arrogant, disingenuous, dishonest, and contemptuous jerks in our society...who will inevitably be proven wrong about most of what they believe at some point! Kinda reminds me of the religious lunatics!

I pray the imaginary being sends another comet impact soon!!!

Reply

Jason

7/21/2017 11:31:49 am

Lol. Wow. What a character assassination. Why do you hate Shermer so much? Do you believe he has some sort of evil intent; like he's just some provocateur? What on Earth would his motivation be for that?

So I watched the video link you provided and found no evidence of Shermer doing what you claim he did. Did we watch the same video? He didn't seem the least bit defensive or dishonest about the information he was presenting. He just laid it out as it was revealed to him, there wasn't any refusal to accept anything as far as I could tell. Forgive me if I missed some specific part that you might be referring to, otherwise I don't see it.

And just so you understand, Michael Shermer is not a scientist by trade; I'm not sure where you got that. I don't think anyone who knows something about Shermer would refer to him as an 'expert' or an 'authority' on these subjects. He is simply a skeptic who's made it their life's work to use logic, reason and scientific method to help educate and basically weed out the bunk for the average person.

Shermer is a science 'writer' as well as a historian of science but its not as if he is submitting scientific research and experiments for peer review. He wouldn't be considered an expert in any given field of science; certainly not in archeology and geology as far as the context of this discussion with Hancock and Carlson. This is why I found it odd that he be the one to have this sort of discussion/debate in the first place, just as Jason Colavito pointed out in this blog post. I suppose that's on Joe Rogan for getting them together. Anyway, knowing something about Shermer's background certainly helps to explain why his take on this subject was quite general and full of basic analogies.

Having said all that I do agree with most of what he said in regards to why the mainstream tends to not pay much mind to Hancock's ideas and others like him. You can boil Hancock's ideas down to what is in essence one big argument from ignorance and a overwellming slant towards negative evidence.

Randal Carlson on the other hand is operating much closer to reason and within the realm of science and can be taken far more seriously than his counterpart. I'm not sure why he chose to attach himself to Hancock in the way that he has as he doesn't appear to have the conviction that Hancock does with regard to the Atlantis and Gobekli Tepe.

Reply

Matt

7/21/2017 10:21:20 am

While reading this entertaining discourse I am reminded of one of my favourite little sayings: "people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts".

People such as Hancock are just really good at blurring the line between the two.

Similarly, there is a fine line between soup and stew.

Pretty sure GT was built by aliens anyway... ;-)

Reply

James Sanchez

8/24/2017 01:02:46 pm

I am surprised how opinionated the author of this article is until the debate turned and the conversation shifted to hard science provided by the 3 geologist. Are you not interested in the provable? The information provided by Carlson, and his supporting geologist, is far more compelling than the mainstream view that Mark Defant can barely articulate. Yes the idea of a comet impact to the North American Ice Shelf is separate from a lost civilization, but it is a tad foolish to act as though they cannot be linked. Shermer really embarrassed himself throughout the 4 hour show, Graham over reacted, Joe was a good moderator, and Randall was the stone pillar of facts. Overall I loved the whole debate, and it was a far fight, both sides had time to prepare.

Reply

S

9/6/2017 07:15:45 pm

I'm a skeptic on just about every issue. I can't think of one I'm not a skeptic about... Atheist, pro-science, anti-woo, you name it. But Hancock has persuaded me that there is compelling evidence for older human civilizations that experienced a significant set-back. I don't buy his theories involving a unified global culture, or that every stray scratch on a tablet is somehow referring to astronomy. He's clearly a little nuts... But look at the knee-jerk backlash he gets--you have to be pretty nuts to continue to pursue something for which you get this level of abuse for.

The bitter vitriol from those who identify with the academy is stunning and, at times, outright childish.

I began listening to Hancock on this podcast prepared to laugh at him like I would David Icke (the Reptilian conspiracy guy). Instead, I heard some out-there but plausible ideas from him that seemed to be based primarily on observations... Contrasted with Shermer's bizarre refusal to engage whatsoever.

So, I Googled more criticism of Hancock hoping to find something that ripped his ideas apart. It's irritating to me when I run across an 'alternative' scientist/historian/whatever that makes sense and usually it's easy to find someone debunking them. Very satisfying to find that, actually.

I did not find that in this case. Bad Archaeology had the most comprehensive criticism of his work. The parts that seemed good -- namely, the overreaching by Hancock to find symbolic motifs everywhere (like the zodiac) -- paled in comparison to the core arguments, which were not adequately refuted.

I remain annoyed, puzzled, and (above all) curious.

Reply

PeterF

9/6/2017 11:05:39 pm

Dude. right on... I feel exactly the same.

Summing what you eloquently expressed:
I have seen enough to believe Hancock is onto something.
I have seen nothing that proves conclusively that ancient civilizations did NOT exist.

Quite the opposite, the number of unexplained sites and artifacts from around the world is baffling. There are enough documented cases or artifacts dating to times and places that we need to start thinking about re-examining it seriously.
We dont have to wonder far from the pyramids.. why oh why would the builders use different kinds of stone INSIDE them...
How about tool marks in the cut stones...

I still insist that Peru holds proof of 3 civilizations (3 distinct stone cutting styles in Machu Picho).. with the larger, more complicated stonework on the BOTTOM.

Further.. I propose that technology does not go backwards lest there is a cataclysmic event... if the Egyptians were the builders, did they just stop research into civil engineering? "Yep, look at this beautiful pyramid... there will be no need to build anything bigger/better ever again" :)

anyway.. I am curious too. I keep digging.. looking.. making my own conclusions. I just wish the stonewalling of academia wasn't so obvious.. so very obvious.

On the side of the "conspiracy", I think "ancient civilizations" melds the naturally inflexible academic chorus, with the stonewall of Religion... A natural consequence of accepting that there were older civilizations is that our present theory of human evolution would require a serious overhaul... Religion and Academia have 0 interest in the possibilities that would bring.

Reply

S

9/7/2017 01:29:00 pm

Thanks for the compliment! I agree with you on this.

The conception of civilization that I was taught is that our species hit its stride about 100,000 years ago, when evolution pushed us into the geniuses we are today. The picture I had in mind was that of dumb, scattered apes that started "waking up" around then and began reproducing at higher rates and sticking together for longer. Fast-forward about 80,000 years and these tribes started dividing labor and, after many false-starts, eventually got their act together and began planting crops and building lasting structures. In total, it took us about 90,000 years to learn enough and to start hanging out in big enough groups to build our first cities.

But that picture no longer feels right to me for two reasons.

First, proto-humans were not scattered, dumb apes prior to 100k years ago. The prior 10s of 100k years were simply dumbER versions of us that engaged in most of the same activities, with the same values and needs as their descendants. Evolution is slow and intelligence is SUPER varied even today. Cities can surely be built by a population half as smart as we are. Did that really NEVER happen? Not even once? In hundreds of thousands of years...?

The other reason my school-taught picture seems flawed is that even assuming we weren't smart enough to build a civilization until 100k years ago, did it really take ~90,000 years to start figuring things out? Were we really slaves to a hunter-gatherer existence for that long? That's 3,600 generations! Surely there were some groups that lived in favorable enough conditions to have enough spare time to start tinkering with stone blocks. Even if improvements were insanely slow to develop... several hundred generations would have to produce something much more than hunter-gatherers with sharpened sticks and loin cloths.

Finally, the last thing that seems strange to me is our conception of what evidence can persist through time and how much of it we can reasonably expect to find. Stone is a really, really hard to use material. Most buildings would've been wood. Wood doesn't tend to last much longer than one generation: it burns, it's re-used, it's tossed in refuse piles that almost alway decay, etc. If we are finding large stone structures from 11k years ago, there had to have been surrounding settlements made of wood and probably many thousands of years' worth of preceding settlements as well. Stone structures do not mark the BEGINNING of an advanced culture -- it marks the middle.

Eric

9/7/2017 02:02:24 pm

I didn't like Shermer's straw man attack of lumping Hancock's theory into the same category as other fringe theories. Shermer has a tendency to speak as if he is standing on academic high-ground but does nothing more than push his own opinions. For example, in the opening Shermer spends a disproportionate amount of time describing the so called "black Egyptian" hypothesis as a fringe theory. This was a direct attack at Graham's good friend Robert Bauval who clearly subscribes to said theory. The theory has never been shown to be wrong so it is only Sherman's opinion that it is false. I'm not sure if this was a real debate or an attempt by Shermer to personally insult Hancock.

Reply

JS

10/25/2018 02:38:34 am

Shermer was in a very hostile social situation. Even the host was being very aggressive. He was there as a skeptic, not an expert, hence his reiteration of skeptical practice & quality of evidence in general. He kept his cool, while being yelled at. Passion isn't the same as volume.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Author

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.